Genghis Khan Gala from Kim Crane on Vimeo.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Rupert Murdoch takes on Google
Oh, silly Rupert Murdoch, you.
That seems to be the gist of the commentary around the blogosphere in response to Rupert Murdoch's (empty?) threat to sue Google for copyright infringement. Murdoch's media companies obviously benefit from the exposure of search engines, but Murdoch apparently thinks he can siphon more money out of his media assets by threatening Google.
Is this a case of an ego out of hand or is there any legal basis to his claim? the management website bnet has a great layman's analysis of the issue. This is an excellent example of fair use law, and how murky those waters really can get. It's hard to know whether or not Murdoch could actually get away with invoking fair use in his complaint against Google.
Of course, the real question is.... even if he could, would he really want to?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
until Hillary Clinton's "cankles" cease to be a news item...
...feminists still have a whole lot of work to do. The news media like to pretend they are entirely objective and wholly separate from entertainment media and other cultural outlets. And yet, at their core, they do the same thing soap operas do: they tell stories. In this case the story is about a ball-busting, cold, heartless, crybaby shrew-bitch of a presidential candidate. Sounds like it could make a juicy story, right?
I'm willing to bet that our brains would cease to process information if we didn't keep feeding them stories. We love stories, we understand stories, we relate to the world through stories.
Stories, as we learned in elementary school, have plot points and conflict. They also are have characters. Even the newsyest news is filled with characters. These characters don't come out of thin air. They have their basis in observed reality, but also in our collective imagination--they are creations of our culture. None of this is a problem--unless, of course, we elevate them as capital-T Truth, missing the countless opportunities to learn from news narratives about who we are as a culture, and where we are headed. We can love our stories and be critical of them at the same time. It is all too easy to put news media on a pedestal of neutrality and ignore the real lessons we could be learning from the news about our own cultural mythologies. Fox news can call itself fair and balanced, or anything else it wants, but Fox, along with every other news agency, is made of humans.
Case in point: the 2008 Democratic primaries.
I am one of many females I know who voted for Obama in the primaries, and yet ended the whole thing with an icky taste in my mouth. That icky taste had to do with the way gender stereotypes were flagrantly used against Hillary Clinton. Wherever the caricatures started, they were perpetuated by the news media. If Clinton didn't resonate emotionally, it was because she was a woman. If she showed her emotions too much, it was because she was a woman. When pundits ran out of mean things to say about her as a person, they talked about her clothing and her body, in ways that no male candidate had to put up with. We were subjected to endless discussions of pantsuits and cankles- it just didn't seem like a fair fight. I think all of us, even those who thought that Obama was the better candidate wanted to see a fair fight.
When Clinton rallied at the New Hanmpshire primaries and exceeded media expectations at the polls, everyone had a theory. Rachel Maddow's theory was perhaps the most interesting. She stunned Chris Matthews by referencing a Talking Points Memo post that suggested people were supporting Hillary Clinton because they were tired of seeing her bullied on the basis of her gender by the likes of Chris Matthews.
This "tweety-effect" theory got people talking, and eventually Chris Matthews was forced to appologize. Sort of.
When a kid gets put in time out so he can sit and think about what he's done, it's with the hope that he won't do it again. Or at least not right away. The day after Chris Matthews vowed never to underestimate Clinton, he was making even more incendiary statements, claiming that she wasn't qualified for her candidacy and had only made it so far because people felt sorry for her for being cheated on by her husband. Chris Matthews seemed incapable of talking about Hillary Clinton without objectifying her.
I don't think this is because Chris Matthews is stupid or really, really forgetful. It's because sexism is very entrenched in this country, deeply embedded in our language and our culture.
The following video shows both male and female anchors using sexist stereotypes to analyze the outcome of the primaries (which by that point Hillary had lost). There are a few things in this video that disturb me. One of themost disturbing is that after claiming sexism wasn't a big factor in the coverage of the primary, or the primary itself, one of the male anchors then compares Clinton to a shreiky first wife at divorce court (around the 2:20 mark).
Some other tidbits that I found annoying:
1) since when are racism and sexism mutually exclusive? since when does one of these issues have to be more important than the other? (Okay, maybe since forever--Women were marginalized in civil rights movements, people of color were marginalized in women's rights movements, and LGBT people in all the movements. Still, there's no excuse for it.) We are not past racism and we are not past sexism. The job of the media is to courageously investigate all forms of power, including racism and sexism, without perpetuating either racism or sexism. Apparently we need to try a little harder.
2) um, last time I checked sexism isn't just a "women's thing." The guy at 6:23 in the video brushes off serious concerns with a hey, we all "have women in our lives" who thought Hillary wasn't given a fair treatment. Basically, in one fell swoop he manages to associate a widely-held view entirely with women and marginalize that view (and the women holding it) as unimportant. This guy could clearly stand to listen a little more to the women in his life. As could the news media in general, which is notoriously dominated by men at the higher levels, and which operates within a male-dominated culture.
No, sexism isn't dead. Yes, it infiltrates the media, and seriously people, is this really news?
Following this story left me feeling disheartened with the news media, Chris Matthews in particular, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and pretty much everyone involved except for Rachel Maddow. I still have faith in you Rachel, please don't ever let me down!
I'm willing to bet that our brains would cease to process information if we didn't keep feeding them stories. We love stories, we understand stories, we relate to the world through stories.
Stories, as we learned in elementary school, have plot points and conflict. They also are have characters. Even the newsyest news is filled with characters. These characters don't come out of thin air. They have their basis in observed reality, but also in our collective imagination--they are creations of our culture. None of this is a problem--unless, of course, we elevate them as capital-T Truth, missing the countless opportunities to learn from news narratives about who we are as a culture, and where we are headed. We can love our stories and be critical of them at the same time. It is all too easy to put news media on a pedestal of neutrality and ignore the real lessons we could be learning from the news about our own cultural mythologies. Fox news can call itself fair and balanced, or anything else it wants, but Fox, along with every other news agency, is made of humans.
Case in point: the 2008 Democratic primaries.
I am one of many females I know who voted for Obama in the primaries, and yet ended the whole thing with an icky taste in my mouth. That icky taste had to do with the way gender stereotypes were flagrantly used against Hillary Clinton. Wherever the caricatures started, they were perpetuated by the news media. If Clinton didn't resonate emotionally, it was because she was a woman. If she showed her emotions too much, it was because she was a woman. When pundits ran out of mean things to say about her as a person, they talked about her clothing and her body, in ways that no male candidate had to put up with. We were subjected to endless discussions of pantsuits and cankles- it just didn't seem like a fair fight. I think all of us, even those who thought that Obama was the better candidate wanted to see a fair fight.
When Clinton rallied at the New Hanmpshire primaries and exceeded media expectations at the polls, everyone had a theory. Rachel Maddow's theory was perhaps the most interesting. She stunned Chris Matthews by referencing a Talking Points Memo post that suggested people were supporting Hillary Clinton because they were tired of seeing her bullied on the basis of her gender by the likes of Chris Matthews.
This "tweety-effect" theory got people talking, and eventually Chris Matthews was forced to appologize. Sort of.
When a kid gets put in time out so he can sit and think about what he's done, it's with the hope that he won't do it again. Or at least not right away. The day after Chris Matthews vowed never to underestimate Clinton, he was making even more incendiary statements, claiming that she wasn't qualified for her candidacy and had only made it so far because people felt sorry for her for being cheated on by her husband. Chris Matthews seemed incapable of talking about Hillary Clinton without objectifying her.
I don't think this is because Chris Matthews is stupid or really, really forgetful. It's because sexism is very entrenched in this country, deeply embedded in our language and our culture.
The following video shows both male and female anchors using sexist stereotypes to analyze the outcome of the primaries (which by that point Hillary had lost). There are a few things in this video that disturb me. One of themost disturbing is that after claiming sexism wasn't a big factor in the coverage of the primary, or the primary itself, one of the male anchors then compares Clinton to a shreiky first wife at divorce court (around the 2:20 mark).
Some other tidbits that I found annoying:
1) since when are racism and sexism mutually exclusive? since when does one of these issues have to be more important than the other? (Okay, maybe since forever--Women were marginalized in civil rights movements, people of color were marginalized in women's rights movements, and LGBT people in all the movements. Still, there's no excuse for it.) We are not past racism and we are not past sexism. The job of the media is to courageously investigate all forms of power, including racism and sexism, without perpetuating either racism or sexism. Apparently we need to try a little harder.
2) um, last time I checked sexism isn't just a "women's thing." The guy at 6:23 in the video brushes off serious concerns with a hey, we all "have women in our lives" who thought Hillary wasn't given a fair treatment. Basically, in one fell swoop he manages to associate a widely-held view entirely with women and marginalize that view (and the women holding it) as unimportant. This guy could clearly stand to listen a little more to the women in his life. As could the news media in general, which is notoriously dominated by men at the higher levels, and which operates within a male-dominated culture.
No, sexism isn't dead. Yes, it infiltrates the media, and seriously people, is this really news?
Following this story left me feeling disheartened with the news media, Chris Matthews in particular, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and pretty much everyone involved except for Rachel Maddow. I still have faith in you Rachel, please don't ever let me down!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Video + Blog = Vlog = Old White Guys Embarrassing Themselves + Social Change
The Denver Center for Performing Arts (DCPA) takes an…. er… interesting approach to promoting their programs. A friend of mine involved with DCPA told me that the organization has been trying really hard to rejuvinate the aging theater audience with new, and younger theater-goers. While I simply have no words for this particular video, I can say that DCPA's video content, in general, provides a great marketing outlet.
With monthly installments of their 10 Minutes to Curtain series, DCPA offers behind the scenes footage and commentary about their programs. This is a brilliant strategy to achieve their goal of attracting new audience members. They at least managed to attract one new audience member. After watching the teasers and learning the stories behind this season’s shows, I now want to go see every one of them.
Video blogging is especially effective for an organization like DCPA, since the product being promoted is performance, which naturally lends itself to video. This doesn't mean, however, that other kinds of organizations can't use video blogging as an effective method of outreach.
The nationwide organization, NetSquared, also uses video blogging effectively-- but for entirely different reasons. The organization's tagline, "remixing the web for social change" pretty much sums up their mission. They use their vlog to share resources and suggest ways for organizations to use technology to improve their social impact.
The visual interest and production values of this vlog are much, much lower than DCPA's. In my opinion, this isn't a serious issue as long as video content supports the overall purpose of the organization--in this case, to increase access to information. I watched the NetSquared video How Nonprofits Can Create Video Campaigns for Social Networks, which is a simple and straightforward recording of a NetSquared event. Most of the videos on the vlog are either recordings of events or on-the-spot interviews with people who attended events. There is minimal to no editing, and the videos lean heavily towards the educational versus the entertaining. I watched all the way through the end of the video campaigns episode because I was interested in the subject matter, not because of creative production of the video itself.
The main point of NetSquared's vlog appears to be to increase participation and connection among people who are physically distant from each other. On this count, it certainly succeeds and and proves that there is no set standard for what makes a video blog effective.
I would argue that an organizational vlog's success is primarily a result of catering to the target audience and supporting the organization's mission. Working in video can be time-consuming, so an organization should have a clear purpose in mind when setting up a vlog. Done correctly, a good video blog can help multiply the effects of an organization's existing efforts--and in the case of socially minded organizations, increase the social impact as well.
Them's Fightin' Words: White House Takes On Fox News
The relationship between the government and the press is rarely a cozy one--nor should it be. In our representative political system, freedom of the press exists to increase government's accountability to the public it represents.
During the Bush administration, Fox faced allegations of spreading Bush's political agenda at the expense of actual news while other networks were accused of a liberal bias in their coverage. Now that the political tables have turned, the networks are under fire from the right for cushy treatment of the Obama administration, while Fox has been accused of crossing lines of decency, journalistic integrity, and even patriotism, in its anti-Obama coverage. Traditionally this back and forth between media and white house resembles a tug of war, or perhaps an elegant martial art--one in which a set of rules is followed, opponents easily anticipate the other's next move, and no one gets seriously hurt. At the end of the day, these two entities need each other: The press needs their story, and the administration needs the exposure.
Or do they? Recent events point to what may be a fundamental shift in this long-standing relationship. The Obama administration communications director, Anita Dunn, in her criticism against right-leaning Fox News went so far as to call it a "wing of the Republican Party." Statements like this suggest that the administration no longer finds it useful to play along with Fox and risk contributing to its legitimacy as a news organization.
The blogosphere is full of contradicting views on what this all means and how it will play out. What Redstate is calling war and "a blatant attack against the First Amendment right of freedom of the press", liberal Huffington Post is terming a "more aggressive strategy." Is the Obama administration picking a fight? or did Fox start it, using their news slots for endless loops of ACORN stories and attacks on the administration?
Whichever view you hold, it is clear that Fox and the Obama administration are hitting each other where it hurts: their legitimacy. While the Obama administration and Fox News may find a way to exist without even the nominal cooperation of the other, neither a news organization or a presidency can be effective without some degree of public confidence and legitimacy.
While the jabs by the Obama administration might be sharp and divisive, it would be wrong to assume that they aren't politically calculated. Whether they are effective or not, that's another matter. Redstate along with other conservative blogs suggests that such tactics will only drive more support to Fox News. David Waldman of liberal blog, the Daily Kos, disagrees.
You can view a more in depth discussion amongst bloggers on potential outcomes of the new strategy here:
It remains to be seen whether or not the Obama administration chose the best way to deal with Fox. I would argue that Fox' misleading coverage and partisan tactics has left the administration with very few good choices. Yes, the press should be free to criticize the president. At it's best, this freedom advances accountability and the public good. Fox, however seems to embody partisanship for the sake of partisanship. The tone of their programming comes off like a sneer, trumpeting and even exalting in the failures of our leaders. To expose the shortfalls of our elected leaders is one thing--to root for their shortfalls is another. With such a twisted perspective, Fox news has me siding with Anita Dunn and the Obama administration. What kind of public good could Fox possibly be serving with such a toxic attitude?
During the Bush administration, Fox faced allegations of spreading Bush's political agenda at the expense of actual news while other networks were accused of a liberal bias in their coverage. Now that the political tables have turned, the networks are under fire from the right for cushy treatment of the Obama administration, while Fox has been accused of crossing lines of decency, journalistic integrity, and even patriotism, in its anti-Obama coverage. Traditionally this back and forth between media and white house resembles a tug of war, or perhaps an elegant martial art--one in which a set of rules is followed, opponents easily anticipate the other's next move, and no one gets seriously hurt. At the end of the day, these two entities need each other: The press needs their story, and the administration needs the exposure.
Or do they? Recent events point to what may be a fundamental shift in this long-standing relationship. The Obama administration communications director, Anita Dunn, in her criticism against right-leaning Fox News went so far as to call it a "wing of the Republican Party." Statements like this suggest that the administration no longer finds it useful to play along with Fox and risk contributing to its legitimacy as a news organization.
The blogosphere is full of contradicting views on what this all means and how it will play out. What Redstate is calling war and "a blatant attack against the First Amendment right of freedom of the press", liberal Huffington Post is terming a "more aggressive strategy." Is the Obama administration picking a fight? or did Fox start it, using their news slots for endless loops of ACORN stories and attacks on the administration?
Whichever view you hold, it is clear that Fox and the Obama administration are hitting each other where it hurts: their legitimacy. While the Obama administration and Fox News may find a way to exist without even the nominal cooperation of the other, neither a news organization or a presidency can be effective without some degree of public confidence and legitimacy.
While the jabs by the Obama administration might be sharp and divisive, it would be wrong to assume that they aren't politically calculated. Whether they are effective or not, that's another matter. Redstate along with other conservative blogs suggests that such tactics will only drive more support to Fox News. David Waldman of liberal blog, the Daily Kos, disagrees.
You can view a more in depth discussion amongst bloggers on potential outcomes of the new strategy here:
It remains to be seen whether or not the Obama administration chose the best way to deal with Fox. I would argue that Fox' misleading coverage and partisan tactics has left the administration with very few good choices. Yes, the press should be free to criticize the president. At it's best, this freedom advances accountability and the public good. Fox, however seems to embody partisanship for the sake of partisanship. The tone of their programming comes off like a sneer, trumpeting and even exalting in the failures of our leaders. To expose the shortfalls of our elected leaders is one thing--to root for their shortfalls is another. With such a twisted perspective, Fox news has me siding with Anita Dunn and the Obama administration. What kind of public good could Fox possibly be serving with such a toxic attitude?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Manhattan College Media Writing Students Bring It!
I checked out the video proposals for the Manhattan College media writing and production class and they all have really great ideas! I’ve done film projects before, but I’ve never attempted a journalistic piece where I had to delve into a substantive topic and bring insight to a complex issue in a mere 5 minutes. Kudos for all the thoughtful approaches to this assignment.
Here are a few comments I left on their blog:
Hello from Denver! You guys picked some important and interesting topics! Can’t wait to see how these evolve! Here is some initial feedback:
Tom, I think homelessness is a great topic, but I’m wondering on how you’re thinking of narrowing this. What angle would you take? Do you have access to homeless people who can tell their own stories? How would you humanize the topic? I want to know more!
Julia, I love that you’ve picked a region of the world that doesn’t get much coverage, and want to bring attention to such an important issue. I’m curious how you’re going to treat the visual component of this story. I wonder what ideas you have about supporting footage for this piece since obviously you can’t fly to Darfur to do interviews… maybe focus on activists based in the U.S.? I’m sure you can make it work—you just might have to be creative!
Alex, I love the detail with which you described your piece. It’s a perfect topic for a visual medium rather than a print story since this topic is all about image. As you’ve suggested, you can show the audience images we’ve seen a thousand times and make us think about them in new ways and cause us to question the images we consume on a daily basis. I also really like the Fiji piece for context. It’s a powerful example of the power of culturally held beliefs about the ideal body- and one that comes across simply with a stark visual contrast that needs very little verbal explanation to hit home.
Good luck you guys!
Here are a few comments I left on their blog:
Hello from Denver! You guys picked some important and interesting topics! Can’t wait to see how these evolve! Here is some initial feedback:
Tom, I think homelessness is a great topic, but I’m wondering on how you’re thinking of narrowing this. What angle would you take? Do you have access to homeless people who can tell their own stories? How would you humanize the topic? I want to know more!
Julia, I love that you’ve picked a region of the world that doesn’t get much coverage, and want to bring attention to such an important issue. I’m curious how you’re going to treat the visual component of this story. I wonder what ideas you have about supporting footage for this piece since obviously you can’t fly to Darfur to do interviews… maybe focus on activists based in the U.S.? I’m sure you can make it work—you just might have to be creative!
Alex, I love the detail with which you described your piece. It’s a perfect topic for a visual medium rather than a print story since this topic is all about image. As you’ve suggested, you can show the audience images we’ve seen a thousand times and make us think about them in new ways and cause us to question the images we consume on a daily basis. I also really like the Fiji piece for context. It’s a powerful example of the power of culturally held beliefs about the ideal body- and one that comes across simply with a stark visual contrast that needs very little verbal explanation to hit home.
Good luck you guys!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Playing the News?
I am fascinated by Ian Bogost’s blog and his Persuasive Games studio. Bogost takes video games beyond the realm of pure entertainment. He argues that video games can play a number of important roles, even *gasp* helping us learn.
Bogost is also breaking new ground in the journalism world by producing games for mainstream news sites like the New York Times and CNN. The use of games and interactivity in journalism is particularly fascinating given the ongoing debate over the future of the field. Many critics wonder whether the awkward shift into the online world might be watering down journalistic principles and integrity.
When it comes to the news value journalistic video games, I think the jury is still out. I played Points of Entry: An Immigration Challenge since I am very interested in immigration issues. I love the idea of any kind of news that engages the audience and gives them a real grasp of the issues. I’m just not sure that that’s what is happening here.
The instructions tell you to “Compete to award Green Cards under the Merit-Based Evaluation System included in legislation recently debated in Congress.” You hand out green cards based on education, work experience, TOEFL scores, etc. The game intends to educate the public on the immigration requirements included in the legislation, and to highlight the arbitrary decisions that determine the futures of people with almost identical backgrounds. At least I think that’s what we were supposed to get out of it. I was getting a little too caught up in the game to really notice what I was supposed to be learning.
This is my main critique, along with the lack of accompanying facts and context. I believe there might be a place for these kinds of games in the future. For the time being though, they are hard to contextualize. I found myself torn between trying to beat the game and trying to learn- not sure which one I was “supposed” to do. The instructions told me to proceed as quickly as possible while the information-acquisition part of my brain wanted to slow down and think about the information I was being presented with. I think this dilemma highlights the deepest irony of such interactive features. Video games may be the least interactive of all forms of news. Yes, they allow us to push buttons and move avatars, but are our minds opening up or closing while we do so?
The easily recognizable video game format triggers an assumption that we will be given a set of rules and our success comes from operating as best we can inside those rules. I would argue that this mental state does not spark the most creative thinking.
The video game mode might have a self-reflexive value for an issue like immigration. The game could work if the point is not to learn about an issue but to simulate an experience- for example the frustration and futility of confronting immigration bureaucracy. It could be possible to connect on an emotional level to the issue without having necessarily internalized the facts. I’m not sure if this is what this game was going for.
Maybe I’ve just played a little too much Tetris in my lifetime and can’t shake the association with video games as mind-numbing kiddy crack. Maybe the kids these days are playing much more creative and interactive video games than I did? Maybe it won’t be as hard for them to make the mental jump to video-game-as-a–source-of-news? I’m not opposed to the idea- in fact I really hope it succeeds. I'm just concerned that media outlets might start providing entertainment at the expense of well-reasoned analysis.
Bogost is also breaking new ground in the journalism world by producing games for mainstream news sites like the New York Times and CNN. The use of games and interactivity in journalism is particularly fascinating given the ongoing debate over the future of the field. Many critics wonder whether the awkward shift into the online world might be watering down journalistic principles and integrity.
When it comes to the news value journalistic video games, I think the jury is still out. I played Points of Entry: An Immigration Challenge since I am very interested in immigration issues. I love the idea of any kind of news that engages the audience and gives them a real grasp of the issues. I’m just not sure that that’s what is happening here.
The instructions tell you to “Compete to award Green Cards under the Merit-Based Evaluation System included in legislation recently debated in Congress.” You hand out green cards based on education, work experience, TOEFL scores, etc. The game intends to educate the public on the immigration requirements included in the legislation, and to highlight the arbitrary decisions that determine the futures of people with almost identical backgrounds. At least I think that’s what we were supposed to get out of it. I was getting a little too caught up in the game to really notice what I was supposed to be learning.
This is my main critique, along with the lack of accompanying facts and context. I believe there might be a place for these kinds of games in the future. For the time being though, they are hard to contextualize. I found myself torn between trying to beat the game and trying to learn- not sure which one I was “supposed” to do. The instructions told me to proceed as quickly as possible while the information-acquisition part of my brain wanted to slow down and think about the information I was being presented with. I think this dilemma highlights the deepest irony of such interactive features. Video games may be the least interactive of all forms of news. Yes, they allow us to push buttons and move avatars, but are our minds opening up or closing while we do so?
The easily recognizable video game format triggers an assumption that we will be given a set of rules and our success comes from operating as best we can inside those rules. I would argue that this mental state does not spark the most creative thinking.
The video game mode might have a self-reflexive value for an issue like immigration. The game could work if the point is not to learn about an issue but to simulate an experience- for example the frustration and futility of confronting immigration bureaucracy. It could be possible to connect on an emotional level to the issue without having necessarily internalized the facts. I’m not sure if this is what this game was going for.
Maybe I’ve just played a little too much Tetris in my lifetime and can’t shake the association with video games as mind-numbing kiddy crack. Maybe the kids these days are playing much more creative and interactive video games than I did? Maybe it won’t be as hard for them to make the mental jump to video-game-as-a–source-of-news? I’m not opposed to the idea- in fact I really hope it succeeds. I'm just concerned that media outlets might start providing entertainment at the expense of well-reasoned analysis.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
My first foray into the political blogosphere
I like politics. I grew up close enough to our nation’s capitol that a certain level of political interest was a given. I visited the supreme court on field trips as a kid. I accepted an intimate knowledge of our legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government like I accepted the grayish mush lumped on our cafeteria trays. It never occurred to me to question it. To this day I heartily enjoy a good policy debate—and yet, for some reason, I don’t read political blogs.
I obviously don't harbor a fear of the internet since check the internet regularly for almost all of my information needs, down to the the most inane celebrity gossip. I’m not sure why I’ve never gotten into reading political blogs. I think maybe I took to heart something I once read about how the blogosphere is polarizing the country into deeply entrenched self-reinforcing camps of people who talk only amongst themselves and will never carry forward a reasoned debate on the issues. That, or maybe I just prefer to read about Lindsey Lohan’s latest screw-up.
For this assignment, I read Wonkette, a prominent liberal blog, and Wizbang, a prominent conservative blog to get a better sense of how political blogs might be contributing to the national debate.
I liked how the two blogs were designed. Text was snappy and at the same time gave you the broader context of the issue. The layout of both sites was image-rich and well-executed, with plenty of links and videos. When it came to content though….
Well, here is my highly unscientific comparison:
Wonkette
Founded by Ana Marie Cox, Wonkette now boasts a team of editors updating multiple times a day. According to Wikipedia, the blog is “known for its sharp, sarcastic, intelligent voice, and for its mixture of heady political discourse with repeated references to gin and anal sex.”
While I didn’t find any articles on either gin or anal sex, I did see a wide breadth of coverage on just the first two pages- from gay marriage, health care, and the Obama administration’s stance on torture, to Glenn Beck's frog murdering ways. Mostly, this blog is intended to humorously expose the people behind the news stories and to bring prominent conservative figures down a notch.
Calling itself a “DC gossip” site, Wonkette takes the types of sarcasm-laden conversations that might happen over workplace coolers and puts it all out there online. The site is important in providing a venue for informal commentary on the issues of the day.
It does, however, take informality to the extreme. Choice descriptions like “Soulless demented fish-carcass” are definitely not going to pop up very often in the mainstream media. While I am about as far to the left as you can get, I wasn’t sure about how I felt about the tone. The writing style definitely made me laugh but it would be off putting to anyone who is not already a self-identified liberal. In fact Wonkette writers are downright mean to anyone who isn’t already a liberal—not in a cute Rachel Maddow way, but in a kid-who-was-picked-on-and-now-becomes-the-biggest-bully-on-the-playground kind of way.
Wizbang
Wizbang, one of the most popular conservative blogs, is no more civil in it’s dialogue. Blanket insults aimed at “frou-frou intellectuals” like myself (i.e. liberals) deter me from wanting to read any further down the page.
The point of this blog is also to highlight news developments and provide commentary on issues of particular concern to conservatives. Some of the recent topics covered on the blog include taxes, FCC regulation, Iraq, and the “unbelievable indoctrination of children to the cult of Obama”
This blog seems less obsessed with breaking news, and more adamant on hitting over and over again the well-worn pet causes of the conservative base. Many of the topics featured in the blog are ongoing in nature, or in a few cases, downright ancient (for example, the story trying to prove there really were WMDs in Iraq. REALLY?!?!)
My biggest takeaway from this excercise was the surprising similarities between the two blogs. Aside from the general snarky tone, it seems like the primary purpose of both blogs is to discredit public figures. Neither site seems to offer too much in the way of actual solutions or constructive analysis.
So, after reading two of the most popular political blogs, I'm still torn on the idea. On the one hand, reading political blogs is a good way to to get a highlight reel of the most noteworthy news items and to stay informed. The personalized, often sarcastic commentary is the sugar to help the medicine go down and the concise, user-friendly format is great for those of us with ADD. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much you can actually learn from these types of blogs. With such narrowly defined audiences, it is unlikely that these blogs are attracting many converts.
At least, if they insist on preaching to the choir, they are giving the choir a good laugh.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Slate's Big Money Makes Learning About the Financial Crisis Fun Again
Not that financial crisis coverage needs to be fun--just accessible. Economic conditions, at least the way they are generally reported (as numbers and letters on a stock ticker) can be difficult for us lay people to visualise. The reporting is often too jargony for me to wrap my liberal-arts-educated head around. This is why it is so important that financial and economic news sites, such as Slate's The Big Money, use video content to supplement their coverage of the financial crisis. Right now, financial news isn't a niche market. It's something that everyone needs to be exposed to--and more importantly to understand.
The video below is a great example of how adding visual element can really bring the point home. This video interviews the creators of a new documentary, American Casino, along with clips from the film. People often speak apocalyptically about the financial crisis, and there is nothing more apocalyptic than a plague. We watch as a plague of mosquitos (and their accompanying diseases) emerges from the abandoned swimming pools of foreclosed mansions.
A Ken doll floating ominously in a sludge-darkened pool, breeding mosquitos, is an image we won't soon forget. It's an apt metaphor for the fallen American dream, corrupted innocence, and toxic ambitions (or something like that). The point being, we've always known there was something sick about the unchecked accumulation of wealth-- seeing the remains of this lifestyle choked by nature and festering as the literal (as well as symbolic) source of disease, adds a whole new dimension to our thinking. This segment not only works well as a trailer, enticing us to watch the whole documentary, but it piques our interest in the general topic, and helps us contextualize the more traditional economic reporting found in The Big Money.
The video below is a great example of how adding visual element can really bring the point home. This video interviews the creators of a new documentary, American Casino, along with clips from the film. People often speak apocalyptically about the financial crisis, and there is nothing more apocalyptic than a plague. We watch as a plague of mosquitos (and their accompanying diseases) emerges from the abandoned swimming pools of foreclosed mansions.
A Ken doll floating ominously in a sludge-darkened pool, breeding mosquitos, is an image we won't soon forget. It's an apt metaphor for the fallen American dream, corrupted innocence, and toxic ambitions (or something like that). The point being, we've always known there was something sick about the unchecked accumulation of wealth-- seeing the remains of this lifestyle choked by nature and festering as the literal (as well as symbolic) source of disease, adds a whole new dimension to our thinking. This segment not only works well as a trailer, enticing us to watch the whole documentary, but it piques our interest in the general topic, and helps us contextualize the more traditional economic reporting found in The Big Money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)